Abortion by cartoon

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The site I linked said that it's possible to have reflex responses to stimuli without awarness - like Terry Schiavo.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This has also been debunked many times over. PLEASE STOP USING BOGUS ARGUMENTS !!! (ie lies)

Oops. I didn't have my source pre-approved by Rue. I forgot. Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus" -- including the Nobel-Prize winner I quoted in another thread, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for clarifying, Rue. The only authority worth quoting is you. I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Hmm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:57 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The site I linked said that it's possible to have reflex responses to stimuli without awarness - like Terry Schiavo.

I suppose that's possible, although I will state for my own position that 1) I'm not personally comfortable with the idea that a baby that I can see and hold and interact with isn't aware, and 2) I have trouble psychologically associating what is happening with that baby with a case equivalent to Terry Schiavo. Again, I'm not saying that it isn't true - I am not an expert on babies nor reflex actions of humans, right along with so many of my other limitations. I just have trouble believing that the actions and what I perceive as reactions in the infant are reflexive and not based in some state of awareness. Of course it wouldn't be the first time my own personal limitations kept me from a "true" understanding if it is indeed a fact.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion. There are good, rational arguments against abortion, just like there are for it. Let's not take the easy way out of this conversation by simply painting the other side as ignorant morons.

Are you going to say that to shineyd and Cartoon?

You don't need to be pro abortion to think it shouldn't be illegal, in fact I'd say painting someone as pro abortion, as if we're saying "Abortions great, kill all babies" would be an easy way out of the conversation too no?

Maybe you'd care to question the trolls assertion that anyone who disagrees with it is lying and hiding the truth, not to mention insinuations that they have less right to an opinion because of age? Though preferably everyone should stop encouraging it to post by playing its game of fire starting.

So anyway really the two positions are abortion, legal or illegal, not anti/pro. Well there's also the “Sinners! Evil dirty Sinners should all die! God hates you!” But like I said we should ignore Cartoon.

And yes, if you really must know I do think wishing abortion to be illegal is indicative of either a lack of compassion, life experience or both. The same as I think the man who kicks his daughter out because she's pregnant lacks compassion. And frankly it's my experience that those who have personal experience with abortion tend to recognise it as a necessary evil, and those that think it should defiantly be illegal don't have any life experience of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Amiton

I share your discomfort. People (normal ones) are programmed to respond to a baby's cry. And when they first open their eyes and look at you, you feel a complete bond. And I think that's what was going on with Mrs Schiavo. People would look into her eyes and have a hard time thinking that the light was on, but ...

But when setting policy, I think you need to go with the facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:51 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This has also been debunked many times over. PLEASE STOP USING BOGUS ARGUMENTS !!! (ie lies)

Oops. I didn't have my source pre-approved by Rue. I forgot. Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus" -- including the Nobel-Prize winner I quoted in another thread, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for clarifying, Rue. The only authority worth quoting is you. I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Hmm.

Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question. If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point.

And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.

As smart as he is, I wouldn't go asking Steven Hawking about marine biology - not his field.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion. There are good, rational arguments against abortion, just like there are for it. Let's not take the easy way out of this conversation by simply painting the other side as ignorant morons.
Are you going to say that to shineyd and Cartoon? ... Maybe you'd care to question the trolls assertion that anyone who disagrees with it is lying and hiding the truth, not to mention insinuations that they have less right to an opinion because of age?

You've got me there. I suppose that if you commit an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your position on an issue, you ought to be called out. Thanks for the nudge.

That said, calling someone insensitive, uncompassionate and ingnorant is still an ad hominem fallacy, and doesn't establish your case.

Quote:
So anyway really the two positions are abortion, legal or illegal, not anti/pro.

Not sure I can agree with you here. Casting it in this light certainly makes it easier to call someon uncompassionate, but this isn't the whole story. If--notice the "if" there for argument's sake--if a fetus is a human being, and if all killing of human beings is murder and if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong. This is the crux of the argument as far as I'm concerned. For me it's isn't as simplistic as "legal or illegal." I think we need to clear up the thorny issue of the ontological status of the fetus before we can really make any progress on this issue.

Quote:
And yes, if you really must know I do think wishing abortion to be illegal is indicative of either a lack of compassion, life experience or both.

Well, given that my position on the issue is that the aborting of the fetus is a moral wrong, I fail to see how opposing the commission of a moral wrong is an indicator of a lack of compassion and life experience. Pregnant and don't want to be a mother? What a difficult spot to be in. But I think that there are ways to avoid having to be a mother other than aborting the baby. It's also the case that unwanted pregnancies are higher amongst poorer demographics. So maybe doing something about the vast economic disparities would go some length to solving these problems.

I guess my basic point is that you're assuming that it's been established that abortion is a morally neutral issue, and I'm not ready to concede that point yet.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:36 AM

Quote:
this position assumes that abortion is a morally neutral proposition, which I'm not prepared to grant. If it's the case that abortion is in fact morally neutral, then golly, we better not make it illegal. But if it's the case that it's not, then we need to be talking about other stuff.

The problem with the abortion debate seems to be that one side casts it as a moral issue and argues it that way, and the other side casts it as a legal rights issue and argues it that way. And so no progress is ever made, because the two sides aren't even talking about the same thing!

Except it's not one or the other. It's both. In fact it's more since, as you mentioned, it's a feminist issue as well. And those are only some of the sides to the debate.

To my mind, the legal and feminist issues have to take precedence, since the moral issues involved are relative. They change vastly depending on who you talk to. I recognise that feminism and the law do too, but it's not to the same degree, and it's certainly not nearly so individual and personal as something like a person's belief system.

Think about it. You object to abortion for philosophical reasons. If I don't, what right do you have to force that philosophy on me? What if my philosophy is different? Who says your philosophy is right and mine is wrong? Who decides which belief system is the right one? Or even if *any* belief system is valid? And what happens to everyone else forced to go along with a belief system they don't agree with and may have very strong objections to? It's an endless argument. We *know* this because it's been going on since we first learned to hit each other over the head with rocks.

Philosophy and religion cannot 100% prove that an unborn baby is a conscious individual with a soul. Medical science can give us some answers, and what it proves every time without difficulty (barring brain death or other physical or mental issues) is that the mother *is* a conscious individual capable of making a choice. That choice *has* to come before anything else, because it's that woman's body that's put at risk, that woman's life that is changed forever and that woman who has to live with the consequences one way or another. No one else is that closely involved in the process of carrying a child and giving birth to it - not even the father, and they can be pretty damn involved.

But crucially, fathers are *automatically* given a choice. They can be involved or they can run a million miles away. Sure, they can be chased for money afterwards, but that's if they can be tracked down and it can be proved in a court of law that they fathered the child and have any money to support it. if abortion is denied to women then they don't get that choice for at least nine months, if at all. That's assuming the mother carries a healthy child to term and gives birth without any complications that result in persistant medical issues or death. Is this helping in any way to understand why the mother has to have the right to choose? Because seriously, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I could type all night (if I didn't have stuff to do here.)

And I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, because I really can't stress this enough. If a woman is desperate not to have a child, then she won't have it. Either she'll go to a clinic and receive counselling and advice to help her make a mature decision, or she'll shove a broom handle somewhere private and do the job herself. Yes, I know that's graphic and disgusting but it's the bloody truth. Anyone in a desperate situation is capable of desperate things, and they won't give a damn if it's legal or no.

You don't want women to have abortions? Fine. Try making social changes to remove the stigma on 'welfare moms'. Try providing actual support by making sure families can work and raise their kids or at least have decent, affordable childcare so they can have their dignity and not live on handouts. And FOR THE LOVE OF HEAVEN introduce mandetory maternity leave! I can't BELIEVE ANY first world country doesn't have that! Especially one so vocal about the rights of the unborn! Talk about blooming double standards! The born have rights too y'know!

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong" and should therefore be illegal.

This is the central fallacy. Immoral and illegal are not one and the same. The US legal code was based on humanist thinking, not theocracy.

The moral of the story is, the morality of abortion should be left between the woman and her religion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think I made my position clear already - the same criterion for death should be used for life - brain activity.

What is the qualitative difference in brain activity in a baby five minutes before its birth and five minutes after?

What, exactly, constitutes "brain activity?"

If a baby born five weeks prematurely has brain activity such that we can't be morally justified in killing it, why doesn't a fetus enjoy the same protection five weeks before its birth? Is there some qualitative difference there?

Did Terry Schiavo have "brain activity?"

If an adult human is involved in a car accident such that the only brain function that remained was only that regulating basic body functions, but who given intravenous feedings, would live for years, are we justified in pulling the plug? And if so, is it because of a lack of brain activity?

At what point, scientifically speaking, does brain activity (of the sort: person making) begin? What studies are there to demonstrate this?

Quote:
As for feminism, it's clear that this is considered a 'woman's' issue/ problem/ sin and men are conveniently left out of the picture. The WOMAN had SEX !!!??? OMG why wasn't SHE more careful/ a stronger fighter/ pure ? The man is just incidental to the whole debate.

Easy--I wasn't saying abortion isn't a woman's issue or a feminist issue. What I am saying is that it isn't only that. It is, in addition, a moral issue. And when we treat it solely as a feminist issue or solely as a political issue then a crucial piece of the discussion (the moral dimension) is being left out.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Brain activity is cortical activity for purposes of (legally and morally) discerning the brain dead - and, as I propose, the brain alive.

Mrs Schiavo did not have cortical brain activity - in her case b/c she did not have cortical brain tissue. Basic brain-stem functions, like breathing, are not a sufficient indicator of a living 'person' in the absense of cortical activity. Legally, one is allowed to 'pull the plug' in that case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:59 AM

FLETCH2

These kind of discussions always happen when the "rights" of two parties are in direct conflict. I don't see that we will ever resolve them here.

Just an observation though, we have the legal concept of justifiable homocide, that is, the right of one adult to terminate the life of another under certain circumstances. With controls we give that power to members of law enforcement. If as has been suggested the taking of a life is murder and murder is immoral isn't justifiable homocide or the taking of human life by the agents of a state also morally wrong? What we find when we look into anything deeply enough is that there are no absolute truths and no black and white when it comes to human interaction. It is and remains subject to context. That seems to be the missing component in an outright ban. First it values the child's potential life over the actual life of the mother. Second in the case of rape it pursecutes the victim and potentially aids the aggressor. I'm not sure how enacting such a law can be considered a good moral viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As related to real-world experience, I was probably involved in political discussion and debate before many of the posters in this thread were even born. I've also witnessed and experienced things firsthand which many of you can only have read about long after the fact.
..... Oops. I didn't have my source pre-approved by Rue. I forgot. Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus" -- including the Nobel-Prize winner I quoted in another thread, etc. etc. etc. etc. Thanks for clarifying, Rue. The only authority worth quoting is you. I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Cartoon, is this string of ad hominems meant to be your reply on the issue of fetal pain? When do you think you might get around to discussing... er... pain... as part of the topic?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:00 AM

Quote:
I keep forgeting that you know everything, and all of the others (those who disaggree with you) are braindead. By your definition, then, they aren't "life" either.

Nah. They're just in need of one.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That said, calling someone insensitive, uncompassionate and ingnorant is still an ad hominem fallacy, and doesn't establish your case.

Is it an ad Hominem fallacy if you can make a case as to why you honestly think that's the case?

Quote:
Not sure I can agree with you here. Casting it in this light certainly makes it easier to call someon uncompassionate, but this isn't the whole story.

Except it is. No one is saying they support murder, there will never be a consensus on whether a foetus or embryo is a fully-fledged human being. Shall I start?
Foetuses are potentially people but not people, they don't have souls, there is no such thing as a soul, whatever.
Your line.

Point is no side is going to up with an argument that is good enough for the other, but there has to be a decision made on the real issue, which is the legality of abortion.

Quote:
If--notice the "if" there for argument's sake--if a fetus is a human being, and if all killing of human beings is murder and if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong.

How many people did you kill during military service?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to daemonise you for military service, far from it, but are you a murderer? Do you consider yourself a murderer? Should you be considered a murderer? I wouldn't consider a soldier doing his or her duty a murderer, but is killing morally right during military service? Is military service a necessary evil because the alternative is worse?

Quote:
This is the crux of the argument as far as I'm concerned. For me it's isn't as simplistic as "legal or illegal." I think we need to clear up the thorny issue of the ontological status of the fetus before we can really make any progress on this issue.

Perhaps we should ask Socrates, perhaps he could come up with an answer we can both agree on?

Quote:
Well, given that my position on the issue is that the aborting of the fetus is a moral wrong, I fail to see how opposing the commission of a moral wrong is an indicator of a lack of compassion and life experience. Pregnant and don't want to be a mother? What a difficult spot to be in. But I think that there are ways to avoid having to be a mother other than aborting the baby.

Since when were these the only circumstances for abortion? And still I say in my experience even those that are anti-legalised abortion tend to see it as a necessary evil when the issue hits closer to home.

Quote:
It's also the case that unwanted pregnancies are higher amongst poorer demographics. So maybe doing something about the vast economic disparities would go some length to solving these problems.

I note that most (not all, most) those that support criminalising abortion tend to be against social programs that help these very people, and the education that may help to reduce the requirement for it.

Quote:
I guess my basic point is that you're assuming that it's been established that abortion is a morally neutral issue, and I'm not ready to concede that point yet.

Whose assuming it? I'm questioning if whether any moral issue is that black and white, I'm also questioning if sometimes we have to allow something bad because in this imperfect world stopping it would be worse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong" and should therefore be illegal.

This is the central fallacy. Immoral and illegal are not one and the same. The US legal code was based on humanist thinking, not theocracy.

Well, there isn't a fallacy there, logically speaking. What there might be is an untrue premise, in which case you'd have an unsound argument, but not a (formally) invalid one. But I digress.

Let's try a different syllogism, one that doesn't cast the issue in moral terms.

If all fetuses are human, and if it is illegal to kill a human, then it is illegal to kill a fetus. Again, the issue revolves around the ontological status of the fetus.

And by the by, morality is not coextensive with religiosity.

In The Moral Foundations of Atheism and Christianity, Mark Vuletic suggested that atheist are able to be more moral than theists. In Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics, in his first chapter, Simon Blackburn tackles (and offers a refutation) of the idea that morality is synonymous with religion. Bertrand Russell, perhaps the most prominent philosopher of the 20th century (and definitely a very determined atheist) was deeply concerned with morality, especially concerning war and sexuality; you can read about his ethical views in Russell on Ethics, released by Routledge.

One need not be a religous person to be interested in being morally good. A great many atheist thinkers would insist that just the opposite is the case. My point, Rue, is that appealling to what is morally right is not the same thing as wanting to install a theocracy; suggesting that it is is merely constructing a straw man. I'm not advocating theocracy (which is a disastrous form of government). I'm saying that I oppose abortion because I consider it to be murder, a moral wrong.

Quote:
The moral of the story...

Pun intended?

the morality of abortion should be left between the woman and her religion.

Are you suggesting that we ought to ignore the moral implications of abortion? Or that abortion only has moral implications if a woman and her religion thinks it does? If the former, I'm afraid that I can't accept that, because any more than I could accept the proposition "The morality of infanticide should be left between parents and their religion." If the latter, there are some very grace logical problems with ethical subjectivism, not the least of which is that if it obtains, it will turn out that there is not such thing as ethics at all!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
Nah. They're just in need of one.

LOL. So funny, I wish I typed it myself.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That said, calling someone insensitive, uncompassionate and ingnorant is still an ad hominem fallacy, and doesn't establish your case.
Is it an ad Hominem fallacy if you can make a case as to why you honestly think that's the case?
Quote:
Not sure I can agree with you here. Casting it in this light certainly makes it easier to call someon uncompassionate, but this isn't the whole story.
Except it is. No one is saying they support murder, there will never be a consensus on whether a foetus or embryo is a fully-fledged human being. Shall I start?
Foetuses are potentially people but not people, they don't have souls, there is no such thing as a soul, whatever.
Your line.

Point is no side is going to up with an argument that is good enough for the other, but there has to be a decision made on the real issue, which is the legality of abortion.
Quote:
If--notice the "if" there for argument's sake--if a fetus is a human being, and if all killing of human beings is murder and if all murder is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong.
How many people did you kill during military service?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to daemonise you for military service, far from it, but are you a murderer? Do you consider yourself a murderer? Should you be considered a murderer? I wouldn't consider a soldier doing his or her duty a murderer, but is killing morally right during military service? Is military service a necessary evil because the alternative is worse?
Quote:
This is the crux of the argument as far as I'm concerned. For me it's isn't as simplistic as "legal or illegal." I think we need to clear up the thorny issue of the ontological status of the fetus before we can really make any progress on this issue.
Perhaps we should ask Socrates, perhaps he could come up with an answer we can both agree on?
Quote:
Well, given that my position on the issue is that the aborting of the fetus is a moral wrong, I fail to see how opposing the commission of a moral wrong is an indicator of a lack of compassion and life experience. Pregnant and don't want to be a mother? What a difficult spot to be in. But I think that there are ways to avoid having to be a mother other than aborting the baby.
Since when were these the only circumstances for abortion? And still I say in my experience even those that are anti-legalised abortion tend to see it as a necessary evil when the issue hits closer to home.
Quote:
It's also the case that unwanted pregnancies are higher amongst poorer demographics. So maybe doing something about the vast economic disparities would go some length to solving these problems.
I note that most (not all, most) those that support criminalising abortion tend to be against social programs that help these very people, and the education that may help to reduce the requirement for it.
Quote:
I guess my basic point is that you're assuming that it's been established that abortion is a morally neutral issue, and I'm not ready to concede that point yet.
Whose assuming it? I'm questioning if whether any moral issue is that black and white, I'm also questioning if sometimes we have to allow something bad because in this imperfect world stopping it would be worse.

Well, here's where I bow out. As with most of our conversations, I've enjoyed this one. You've made good arguments; I hope I have as well. But we're not going to convince each other. Thanks for remaining calm through it. Wish I could same the same for everyone in this thread. I just hope you don't seriously walk away with the evaluation that I'm ignorant and insensitive. I'm don't doubt that you've encountered plenty of that, but I hope that I've shown you at least one example of someone who is not the stereotype you're accustomed to.

Cheers!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, here's where I bow out. As with most of our conversations, I've enjoyed this one. You've made good arguments; I hope I have as well. But we're not going to convince each other. Thanks for remaining calm through it. Wish I could same the same for everyone in this thread. I just hope you don't seriously walk away with the evaluation that I'm ignorant and insensitive. I'm don't doubt that you've encountered plenty of that, but I hope that I've shown you at least one example of someone who is not the stereotype you're accustomed to.

Cheers!

You're right, which is why I made certain comments earlier as to why this thread exists. No I don't think you're ignorant or insensitive, but I do think most those who are against legalised abortion are, at least in this circumstance. To be perfectly honest I feel that abortion is an issue where the vast majority of people who are against it see it as something that 'they' do, and don't have a personal experience of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question.

Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point. clearly been called into question.

I could post several. But, why bother? Rue (and all those in agreement with Rue) will summarily dismiss them all, as they do with everything which contradicts their far more enlightened opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.

For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.

How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:21 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.

How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.

I was walking the world for a spell and I missed some things. There's a Nobel Prize in cosmology now?

Without wanting to restart previous discussions, who's the Nobel Prize winner you keep referring to? I want to do a bit of research on him.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.

If you mean Rue and other intelligent folk base who is credible on their, erm, well credibillity not just saying what they want to hear as you do, you are of course entirely correct, well done, I've always said there is a first time for everything.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.

How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.

In fact he was a cosmologist who said nothing of the sort brought up on a thread about biological evolution as a red herring that someone hoped no one would catch out, namely that when party A said 'Evolution' everyone would assume party A was talking about the topic of the thread so entitled 'evolution'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I just have trouble believing that the actions and what I perceive as reactions in the infant are reflexive and not based in some state of awareness.

Pour salt on a snail and it will writhe. Put formaldheyde in water and protozoans and all kinds of other little critters will skeddadle out of the way. Poke an anemonme and it will close up. AFAIK all animals respond to noxious stimuli but that doesn't necessarily mean they feel "pain".

When we talk about the "human brain" we really should be talking about the human brains because we all have several. Our thalami (deep gray matter) and cortex (gray matter) literally exist atop our lizard-brain (brainstem) and our worm-brain (solar plexus). Our "primitive" brains are functional units.

They have to be. For most animals, that's all they have. This "primitive" system stimulates the heart, lungs and digestive system, pumps out hormones, responds to stimulous (pleasureable or not) and stores basic behaviors (like instinct) in the many animals that don't have a cortex. We shouldn't overlook the power of the "lizard brain" in generating behavior.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cartoon:

Quote:
Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.

No, what I find off-topic is that, in discussing fetal pain you never actually get around to discussing fetal pain. You quote one article, which Rue disagreed with by pointing out that the basic central nervous system components that "feel" pain are not even developed at 20 weeks.

You could have tried to draw a comparison between various animals at similar stages of neural development (worm, snail, lizard, bird) and correlate when we think THEY feel "pain" versus when a fetus with similar neural equipment feels "pain". Or- if you didn't feel like doing original research- you might have found contradictory quotes from other doctors and THEIR reasoning about when fetuses feel pain. (It IS an area of research).

But what you chose to do is tell us all about how old you are (sonny, I'm prolly older than you) and name-call.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:40 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Now you're just being childish. Rue pretty clearly cited the study which contradicts your point. Saying Rue never listens doesn't change the fact that your point has clearly been called into question.

Rue always contradicts whomever I find who will disagree with her. I stated as much. If you determine my stating of that fact to be "childish", so be it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
If you've got something to contradict Rue, post it. But whining doesn't support your point. clearly been called into question.

I could post several. But, why bother? Rue (and all those in agreement with Rue) will summarily dismiss them all, as they do with everything which contradicts their far more enlightened opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And give it up on that Nobel Prize winner. You fall back on that waaay too much. I remember that thread, and your Nobel Prize winner won that prize in a different field.

For the fifteen millionth time -- he was not in a "different field". He was a cosmologist speaking about how cosmologically, the universe could never have evolved.

How that's considered a "different field" somehow manages to escape my obviously limited intelligence.

If the sources you cite are so easily shot down, maybe you need to do better research, or revise your stance. I may not post a lot, but I read just about every thread, and yes, Rue usually contradicts you. But Rue backs it up with info. Do the same, and I will respect, if not agree with, your arguments. Right now, I see nothing to make me think you are arguing from anything other than a theological standpoint.

Crying because Rue shoots your claims down with evidence does not make your point any stronger - quite the opposite.

And saying you "could" back your claims, but won't because Rue will disagree is cowardly - I asked for the background, and your refusal to give any has diminished any chance of my taking your argument seriously.

As for your Nobel winner, I could tell the diference between the fields of study, and I am far from being a scientist. Others have quite succinctly pointed out how your use of that source is very much an apples to oranges situation, regardless of the inclusion of the word "Evolution". Beating the same broken drum just makes you look silly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what you chose to do is tell us all about how old you are (sonny, I'm prolly older than you) and name-call.

Hi.

Firstly, I'm not the one who brought up age. Causal posted the following: " It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion."

I responded to Causal (in total agreement) supporting his/her supposition, and reinforcing said statement with a comment which clearly demonstrated that I certainly do not fall into the category of one who is an opponent of abortion, yet having no "real-world experience".

If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I was walking the world for a spell and I missed some things. There's a Nobel Prize in cosmology now?

Hi. No, George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics. He is a cosmologist who has clearly stated that the cosmos (which is his field of expertise) are too extremely fine-tuned to have come about by chance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Without wanting to restart previous discussions, who's the Nobel Prize winner you keep referring to? I want to do a bit of research on him.

Sure. I have no intention of reopening that can or worms. I only mention Smoot as yet another example of how my sources are continually called into question by persons with obviously more knowledge than my sources in every field of human endeavor.

I've learned my lesson, though. No more sources who aren't atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, and anti-American.

I can deal with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Anyone who disagrees with their ideology is a "troll".

But then, since when did liberals ever want to take responsibility for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault

It's been said that one can judge a man by his enemies. If that's true, you should wear their insults as a badge of honor.

As related to real-world experience, I was probably involved in political discussion and debate before many of the posters in this thread were even born. I've also witnessed and experienced things firsthand which many of you can only have read about long after the fact.

Everything with which Rue disagrees is "bogus"

If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum

I've learned my lesson, though. No more sources who aren't atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, and anti-American.

Okay, let's get back to your original points:

The New Zealand study appears to have a problem of self-selection due to the REQUIREMENT that abortion be provided only in more dire circumstances. Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that?

The fetal pain argument appears to be derailed by the fact that the 20-week fetus doesn't have the central nervous system components to feel "pain". Do you have any comments to that? Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I responded to Causal (in total agreement) supporting his/her supposition, and reinforcing said statement with a comment which clearly demonstrated that I certainly do not fall into the category of one who is an opponent of abortion, yet having no "real-world experience".

If my age and "real-world experiences" are the cause of intimidation to some in here, I suppose you'll have to primarily blame my parents for my conception and birth at a time which is apparently inconvenient to the theories of some in this forum.

Someone can be a hundred years old and still have no real life experience, Cartroll,

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:53 PM

STORYMARK

And still evading direct questions...

When did Cartoon become Hero?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And still evading direct questions...

That's Cartoon's stock-in-trade.

Apropos of babies' development, I thought this was interesting: "Babies," he says, "know squat."

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580382,00.html

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that? ... Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?

Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No.

I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony.

Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.

After all, your sources are all right, and mine are all wrong.

You win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic,liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No.

I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony.

Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.

After all, your sources are all right, and mine are all wrong.

No, I mean ANY medical or scientific source. Or... use your brain. We have one medical source saying one thing. We have another medical source saying something else. Where is the consensus? Or- if you don't think "consensus" is a valid measure of truth (after all, a people have been wrong en masse before)- where are the facts and the logic to tie them together? It IS an area of ongoing discussion- certainly not settled by any means. After all, it wasn't too long ago that anesthesia wasn't administered to babies during circumcision because it was thought that babies didn't "feel pain" either. Now we know they recover faster without that trauma. (One has to wonder about the pain of being born... but I digress) Have you googled the topic? Hey, I'm trying to help you out by suggesting some avenues of investigation. But don't expect me to do the whole thing for you- this is YOUR point, after all!

BTW- have you given up on the New Zealand study?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I can only guess that Cartoon is outta this thread.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
We shouldn't overlook the power of the "lizard brain" in generating behavior.

Up to and including message board posts...

Quote:
People (normal ones) are programmed to respond to a baby's cry. And when they first open their eyes and look at you, you feel a complete bond.

But the definition of 'normal' falls flat when discussing the demographics of a large percentage of unwanted pregnancies - often the person in question has some level of attachment disorder in the first place, which much of the time set the stage and led up to the events causing the unwanted pregnancy.

Ergo that bond in such a case will be weak, non-existant or even distorted into hostility at an unwanted dependant, even on a subconscious level.

While not offering any statement on the topic itself, that did need to be pointed out.

I will however, offer this.

I think we should make the Trojan Man a national hero.
Always liked him.

TROJAN MANnnnnnnnnn!

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:10 PM

BULLETINTHEBRAINPANSQUISH

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But the definition of 'normal' falls flat when discussing the demographics of a large percentage of unwanted pregnancies - often the person in question has some level of attachment disorder in the first place, which much of the time set the stage and led up to the events causing the unwanted pregnancy. Ergo that bond in such a case will be weak, non-existant or even distorted into hostility at an unwanted dependant, even on a subconscious level.

Frem. I'm shocked my own self. This is so bang-on.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:28 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But the definition of 'normal' falls flat when discussing the demographics of a large percentage of unwanted pregnancies - often the person in question has some level of attachment disorder in the first place, which much of the time set the stage and led up to the events causing the unwanted pregnancy. Ergo that bond in such a case will be weak, non-existant or even distorted into hostility at an unwanted dependant, even on a subconscious level.
Frem. I'm shocked my own self. This is so bang-on.

Not sure if it's always bang on. I know of two cases where the mother has become very devoted to her child, even though she had some attachment issues before (maybe still; both happen to be single mothers). So while the statement may hold in many cases, I don't think it's fair to generalise it.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:24 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Q: Do I have a moral objection to Abortion?
A: Yes... I believe I do.

Q: Would I ever consider abortion as an option?
A: Seeing as how I'm only the sperm donor and this country leaves this decision entirely in the hands of the woman, which I find to be a very unjust practice, I would be ultimately at her mercy in this. I do believe that I would find it impossible to go along with this without a fight if she were to decide that abortion is the way she wanted to handle the situation. I do not desire children, but I do believe personally that we are talking about murder here as a way of skirting the consequences of bad choices we made. This is why it's really important not to sleep around unprotected with somebody who can turn out to be a selfish and shallow idiot in the end. :)

Q: Do I believe that it is my right, or the right of any other person, organization or government to make this decision for me or anybody else?
A: I think you all know the answer to that one, but for those of you who missed it in any thread I've ever spoke on in here before "HELL NO!".

By the way... didn't we have a seperation of church and state? While I ask them nicely to respect my Constitution and quit micromanaging my choice on abortion, I will kindly ask those dickwad nanny police to stop "sin" taxing my cigarettes and alcahol and telling me that I can't smoke anywhere anymore.

Frackin' meddling Alliance bastards......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I believe the specific perjorative you're looking for here is "Purplebellies".

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:39 PM

I don't really want to weigh into the whole wrong/right, legal/illegal aspect of this thread, but I do want to point out to some of the posters who have been saying that women should just practice safe sex and 'take responsibility' for their 'mistakes', that this isn't always the case.
Condoms break, the pill doesn't always prevent pregnancy (I have two friends who became pregnant while on the pill and using condoms with their boyfriends) and the morning-after pill isn't available everywhere for a 'the condom broke' situation.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that pregnancies do occur in instances of rape and incest, so all these factors need to be taken into consideration in this discussion too.

Mal gives control of the ship to Zoe...
Mal: If I'm not back in an hour, you come, and you rescue me.
Zoe: What? And risk my ship?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BulletInTheBrainPanSquish:
I don't really want to weigh into the whole wrong/right, legal/illegal aspect of this thread, but I do want to point out to some of the posters who have been saying that women should just practice safe sex and 'take responsibility' for their 'mistakes', that this isn't always the case.
Condoms break, the pill doesn't always prevent pregnancy (I have two friends who became pregnant while on the pill and using condoms with their boyfriends) and the morning-after pill isn't available everywhere for a 'the condom broke' situation.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that pregnancies do occur in instances of rape and incest, so all these factors need to be taken into consideration in this discussion too.

Mal gives control of the ship to Zoe...
Mal: If I'm not back in an hour, you come, and you rescue me.
Zoe: What? And risk my ship?

Well, I'd just like to note for the record that I haven't said that women (and only women) need to "take responsibility" for their "mistakes." That wasn't me that said that. No sir.

Reason I caveat this is that I do want to address something, and that is the notion of responsibility. We're all adult-type-personages on this board, I think; by this point we know how babies are made. If babies were made in some process that was as pleasant as a root canal, there'd be no issue with abortion--nobody'd undertake the process unless they really, really wanted a baby. But let's face it: sex is really pleasant! (Understatement of the year.) So people who don't want to have babies take their chances because they want to have that experience (and believe me--that's totally understandable). Prior to the mid-20th century, when the first hormonal oral contraceptives were introduced, having sex carried a significant risk of pregnancy. Today, with the advent of reliable birth control, that risk has diminished greatly. But it's still there. As Bullet pointed out, condoms break, and the pill fails--and pregnancy ensues. There's a choice (to have sex) and a risk (of pregnancy) that sometimes leads to an effect (the actualization of the risk).

But here's where I get fuzzy. I totally understand the impulse to not want to be a mother--parenthood is tough, in the best of situations, and single parenthood must be especially difficult. I am not ready to be a father yet, so my wife and I use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Please understand--I get the not-wanting-to-be-a-parent thing. But sometimes, in spite of that desire, pregnancy occurs as a result of the choices we make, and at that point something has to be done. There seem to be three viable alternatives: 1) go to term and keep the baby; 2) go to term and give the baby up; 3) abort the pregnancy. So now the effects of actions have to be faced. And this is why I don't think that we can completely eliminate the moral dimension from this question: your commitments in terms of the ontological status of that thing in the womb are going to determine which of those three choices remain live options. I think that thing in the womb is a fully distinct human being (having its own completely unique set of DNA) and therefore is entitled to the protection of the law as such, so in my opinion #3 is no longer a live option. Both #1 and #2 will prevent a woman from having to be a mother if she doesn't want to be--but they will not prevent her from having to go through pregnancy and childbirth. So it seems that #3 is the most attractive option, not simply because it will prevent a woman from being obligated to be a mother, but because it will prevent her from being inconvenienced by pregnancy and childbirth. But it doesn't seem that the desire for convenience should be allowed to trump what I take to be the right to life of human beings. Don't forget also that not having sex is a guaranteed method for preventing pregnancy. This will, of course, be scoffed at--but to the scoffers, I humbly submit that we, as humans, have a rational capacity. We are not simply at the mercy of our genes and instincts. We choose to have sex, and in choosing we run risks. But implying that saying "no" is impossible seems like an insult to the power of our rational capacity to make informed decisions and then carry them out.

One further addendum. The tenor of this discussion has been varied in terms of emotional intensity. I want to repeat, for the record, that I am not judging anybody for "mistakes" or demanding that anyone adhere to my philosophical position. I'm simply trying to present a calmly reasoned case for the pro-life side (something that, I'm sorry to say, is often lacking).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add: I know there are tons of questions about rape and incest and the possible danger to the mother; all good questions to ask. For brevity's sake, I've chosen to go with a more basic account.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:42 AM

See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.

We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.

We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

In case you all forgot, I'm not in favor of legislating against abortion.

But I have seen many times on this board the argument that pregnancy is a life-injuring, possibly deadly ailment.

Certainly a pregnancy has the possibility of threatening your life and causing permanent injury, but is this really a valid argument? I mean, is being pregnant as dangerous as being shot, as some of these alarmist statements seem to suggest? Some kind of dangerous incident where there is a 25% chance that you're going to die?

I had always believed that serious complications and death from pregnancy were relatively rare. (And this from someone whose wife once had serious complications from pregnancy.)

Is pregnancy much more dangerous than driving a car? Going for a swim? Are there any statistics on how many pregnancies end in permanent debilitating injury and death?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Certainly a pregnancy has the possibility of threatening your life and causing permanent injury, but is this really a valid argument? I mean, is being pregnant as dangerous as being shot, as some of these alarmist statements seem to suggest? Some kind of dangerous incident where there is a 25% chance that you're going to die?

For some people yes.

Quote:
I had always believed that serious complications and death from pregnancy were relatively rare. (And this from someone whose wife once had serious complications from pregnancy.)

With proper medical intervention it is somewhat rarer, but actually complications are somewhat common and would often if untreated lead to serious maybe even life threatening complications. A friend of mine has had two children, both times she retained the placenta, with her first child she almost bled to death.

Human pregnancy is naturally pretty much the most dangerous of any in the animal kingdom.

By the way she had an abortion some years back, which she was forced into having by her then violent and abusive boyfriend. If Abortion was illegal she would have still had an abortion, but instead of having a relatively safe procedure performed by trained medical staff she would have been forced to have one by Bob "The Baby Butcher" Hatchett using a coat hanger and an aqua vac. A procedure that one imagines would be somewhat less safe and probably would have had a greater chance of leaving her dead or infertile than going off without a hitch.

But perhaps her life and the lives of her two children are forfeit as punishment for having an abusive boyfriend once, I don't know, perhaps our resident Troll can tell us.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:51 AM

I actually tried to get statistics when I started arguing in the thread initially, but I'm having trouble finding them.

You're right, complications are relatively rare, but they do happen. I know I sound alarmist since I keep harping on about the worst case scenario, but it's something every potential mum *has* to think about. Especially since factors like family history can make a massive difference. I've known a couple of people that have had to make some pretty serious choices in that regard.

Is being pregant more dangerous than driving a car or going for a swim? Don't know. But I know I choose to get behind the wheel or take a dive. And speaking on behalf of me and my body, I don't care how small a chance there is of me getting hurt. If there's a chance, I choose to take it!

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.

We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.

No, not forgetting that at all. I know that pregnancy is the most traumatic and dangerous bodily cycle that humans go through. That would be why death in childbirth was so high in the premodern world. My point was this: abortion is not the only way to avoid being pregnant. Not having sex is also a way to avoid being pregnant. But many (most?) people act as though that's impossible, and so either ignore it as an option in their decision making process, or cast it as some monstrous perversion when brought up in a discussion like this one; and consequently, the other option for not being pregnant is the only one that remains on the table. But I think to cast the decision not to have sex as either impossible, impracticable, or contrary to human nature, is to deny to humans that which Aristotle attributed to them: that we are rational animals. Do we have the same instincts and urges as other animals (including the drive to procreate)? Of course we do. But we also have a rational faculty that allows to overrule our animal instincts on rational grounds. So it is at least possible for a human being to make the following sort of decision making process: 1) I want to have sex, but 2) I don't want to have children, and 3) If I have sex, I might become pregnant, so 4) I will not have sex. That is at least possible.

Of course, most people do not take that route; they do have sex, and often, they do become pregnant. At that point the question is, "Is the thing-in-the-womb entitled to continue to live, or is it not?" It's true that pregnancy is a pretty daunting physical process--but let's not forget that mortality rates due to pregnancy are, in the West, exceedingly low given the level of medical care available. So we can't simply cast the decision as one between safety and catastrophy.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:01 AM

Which pretty much brings us back to the same argument, because it comes down to the right of the child to be born verses the right of the mother to choose not to be a mother. And my argument is that, even if it's unlikely, the right of the mother to choose has to come before anything - even the child in her womb - because the decision she is making could be the decision between safety and catastrophe, and no one else can decide that for her.

After all, the safety factor is relative too. Abortion can lead to pretty nasty complications. Which is why this is not a decision any woman takes lightly. Or if they do, they're so stupid they really shouldn't be breeding anyway.

Personally, I don't think I'd ever have an abortion, but that's very easy for me to say when I'm sitting here all happy and healthy and non-pregnant. Much as I respect life, much as I think it's the most precious gift this world has, it goes against the very grain of me to think that anyone but me chooses whether or not I become a mother.

As for sex, it's important to remember that even biologically speaking it's not purely a tool for procreation. It's a very important part of how we socially interact. Having our sex drives switched on 24/7 instead of having "breeding seasons" like a lot of animals is a very large part of the reason we evolved into conscious beings. It's a trait seen in many social animals, like chimps and apes, the ones we think of as more intelligent. It was that very interaction that allowed us to form communities and cultures. Still, that's a whole other thread.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
As for sex, it's important to remember that even biologically speaking it's not purely a tool for procreation. It's a very important part of how we socially interact. Having our sex drives switched on 24/7 instead of having "breeding seasons" like a lot of animals is a very large part of the reason we evolved into conscious beings. It's a trait seen in many social animals, like chimps and apes, the ones we think of as more intelligent. It was that very interaction that allowed us to form communities and cultures. Still, that's a whole other thread.

Nothing particular to pick with here; we've just arrived at the irreducible point beyond which discussion will only get circular. As with Citizen (see above), I just wanted to say thanks for the engaging, stimulating, and above all civil discussion. I can happily say that I would be proud to be your friend, disagreements or no, and that's something.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:13 AM